Vol.1 No.2 2008

65/85

Interview : Hope for Synthesiology−134 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) weight, but make some integration or combination.(Lester)So the contribution here is to identify the elements that are needed to achieve the objective, whereas here the contribution is to develop this new important thing. (Kobayashi)I thought these six papers in Synthesiology are related with these three types of synthesis. This is my selection and I don’t know if it is appropriate or not. (Lester)I think this is helpful. But perhaps one can say – although maybe you will disagree -- that all of these things could be done in a Type 1 Basic Research setting, but what differentiates Type 2 Basic Research from Type 1 Basic Research is that in Type 2 Basic Research, you actually start at the end. Or maybe you don’t start there but at least you have an idea of some practical objective that you want to achieve, and here, and here, and that motivates the synthesis, whereas in Type 1 Basic Research, I would argue -- maybe you will disagree with this -- that even in Type 1 Basic Research, it’s possible to have a synthesis but in that case it’s not driven by some practical objective in the world. My understanding of the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is not that you only have integration in Type 2 and you never have integration in Type 1. I think you can have integration in both cases. But the difference between Type 1 and Type 2, in my understanding, is that in Type 2, it’s the motivation for the integration that is different. In Type 2, the reason for the integration is to accomplish some practical objective. So you have to move between the practical objective and the opportunity for integration, whereas in Type 1, you are not motivated by the practical objective. You just are motivated by the opportunity to synthesize or the opportunity to integrate. This is just the way I see this. We can identify a number of areas in Type 1 Basic Research where different disciplines come together: for example, biochemistry. There, you have integration or a synthesis of two disciplines. But what’s happening is that the frontier of knowledge is being advanced but not because of a practical objective, but because there are opportunities in the two fields to bring them together. And I think that in the case of Type 2 Basic Research, what’s driving the integration is some practical objective. So that’s how I see the difference.(Kobayashi)I agree with you that the motivation, or driving force or the objectives are different. I think you mentioned something in your book about innovation*, and you make some description on analysis and interpretation. Is there any relationship or similarity?(Lester)What is the relation between Type I and Type II research, on the one hand, and the analytical/interpretive distinction, on the other? I think this is not so obvious but still it’s possible to talk about this. So let’s say we have Type 1 and Type 2 and I think we understand the difference between these types of Basic Research. It’s a little bit difficult because the distinction we developed in our book between analytical and interpretive approaches is a distinction that applies to the development of a new product or a new service rather than to basic research. So in order to address your question I have to translate a distinction that was developed for one context into a very different context. I think that perhaps the best way to do it is to say that, in each case, i.e., both in research and in product development, there are only two situations that can arise. In one situation, the problem is well understood and the task is to solve the problem. Maybe it’s a very difficult problem; let’s say you have a theorem in mathematics that has never been proved, and it might take ten years or it might take fifty years to prove it. But even though the problem is a very difficult one, it is still a well-defined problem that has to be solved. This example of a theorem in mathematics is, I think, a Type 1 Basic Research problem. But you can have situations in which the problem is well understood in Type 2 situations as well. Let’s take one of the examples here. Maybe the problem is to establish a measurement scheme for ranking health risks -- that’s the problem. So we have to develop a scheme which we can use to compare different kinds of health risks. That’s a practical problem. It’s a difficult problem but we can state what the problem is and we can work hard at it and maybe Prof. Richard K. LesterIntegrated TechnologyTechnology Element ATechnology Element BIntegrated TechnologyIntegrated TechnologyEssential Technology Element ATechnology Element ATechnology Element BTechnology Element CMarginal Technology Element BMarginal Technology Element C1. Aufheben type2. Breakthrough type3. Strategic Selection typeFig. Different types of synthesis.(62)−

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です